Public scan — anyone with this URL can view this analysis. Sign up to track your own repos privately, run scheduled re-scans, and get AI fix prompts via your dashboard.

RJL667/veilguard

https://github.com/RJL667/veilguard · scanned 2026-06-15 23:52 UTC (2 months, 3 weeks ago)

250 raw signals (0 security + 250 graph)

File as issue Image

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 2 months, 3 weeks ago · v1 · 231 actionable findings from 1 signal source. 19 repeated signals grouped for readability. Security checks, system graph analysis, and verified AI-agent feedback are merged into one review queue.

JSON

100.0% cov · 231 findings

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 0 High 32 Medium 20 Low 84 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Security checks 0 System graph 231 Crowd 0 Layer: Software 8 Frontend 1 Hardware 7 Security 37 Cicd 1 Quality 127 Api 50

Exclude dismissed / FP Exclude test files

Bug-class explainers. Each card groups findings of the same shape — these are the patterns most likely to ship to prod and reappear in future scans unless you systematically fix the cause, not just the instance.

Duplicates & near-duplicates 1 finding

What it is: Same function copy-pasted into multiple modules with minor variations.

Why it matters: Each copy drifts independently — bug fixes apply to one, miss the others.

How AI causes it: AI completes the same pattern in each file rather than refactoring to a shared helper.

Fix approach: Extract the duplicated logic into the most general module both call sites already import. Add tests at the helper level.

1 matching finding on this repo

low Near-duplicate function bodies in 2 places repo-level

View all duplicates & near-duplicates findings →

Legacy markers 1 finding

What it is: TODO, FIXME, XXX, HACK comments. Often indicate a known-broken path the author meant to fix.

Why it matters: Each marker is an unfinished thought. Production code shouldn't ship with debt that's documented but not tracked.

How AI causes it: AI mirrors the style of the codebase, so existing TODOs propagate into new code.

Fix approach: Convert each into a ticket. Delete the comment when the ticket lands. Use a pre-commit hook to block new TODOs without an issue link.

1 matching finding on this repo

low Old/deprecated-named symbol `_FauxTaskFromLegacy` in services/sub-agents/tools/…

View all legacy markers findings →

Commented-out code 93 findings

What it is: Lines of source that were intentionally disabled but never deleted.

Why it matters: Git already remembers history — commented code rots, becomes wrong, and adds noise to diffs.

How AI causes it: AI sometimes comments out broken code instead of fixing it. Reviewers approve out of inertia.

Fix approach: Delete. Trust `git log`. If you really need to remember, save it in a notes file under `docs/`.

12 matching findings on this repo

info Commented-code block (7 lines) in cost_simulation_v2.py:78
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in scripts/verify_signal_emitters.py:205
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in scripts/lance_maintenance.py:35
info Commented-code block (8 lines) in agent/shadow_tool.py:73
info Commented-code block (7 lines) in agent/base.py:79
info Commented-code block (8 lines) in agent/preamble.py:140
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in agent/director.py:83
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in deploy/librechat-patches/client/src/component…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in deploy/librechat-patches/api/server/routes/ve…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in agent-runtime/demo/scenario_critic_iterate.py…
info Commented-code block (9 lines) in agent-runtime/demo/scenario_pattern_b_delegat…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in agent-runtime/demo/_harness.py:79

View all commented-out code findings →

Config drift 6 findings

What it is: Settings duplicated across env files, Docker compose, K8s, and code defaults, all with slightly different values.

Why it matters: Production behaviour depends on whichever copy your loader reads first. Subtle bugs in staging that don't reproduce in dev.

How AI causes it: AI writes new config from memory rather than reading the existing source.

Fix approach: Pick one source of truth (env vars + a settings module). Have every other place import from there. Lint for duplicates in CI.

6 matching findings on this repo

medium Runtime service client appears to use placeholder configuration
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in agent-runtime/app/config.py:114
info Commented-code block (8 lines) in services/sub-agents/config.py:40
high FastAPI POST `proactive_config_set` without auth dependency — agent-runtime/app… agent-runtime/app/main.py:2016
low Unused endpoint: GET /proactive_config
low Unused endpoint: POST /proactive_config

View all config drift findings →

For AI agents: Voting guide (TP/FP) MCP manifest Stdio wrapper SARIF Integrate Findings queue Vote TP/FP on findings to calibrate the engine.

For AI agents + API integrations

Email me when this repo regresses

Free. We re-scan periodically; new criticals → your inbox. No signup required for the scan itself.

API access

This page is publicly accessible at: https://repobility.com/scan/47e7f1b2-ace2-474a-a547-f015328af58e/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/47e7f1b2-ace2-474a-a547-f015328af58e/

Important — please don't re-submit the same URL repeatedly. The submission endpoint is idempotent: re-submitting the same git URL returns this same scan_token, not a new one. To re-scan this repo, sign up free and use the dashboard.